I spent most of the day opining in front of the Supreme Court and in studies on the 6-3 ruling in favor of the Obama Administration in King v. Burwell. I will not subject you to more of that analysis. I have previously indicated that I found the opposing view of the Halbig decision against the Administration to be compelling, though I have always viewed this to be a difficult question upon which people of good-faith could disagree. Yet, in both my prior congressional testimony and my columns, I have never accused the Administration of “jiggery-pokery” — largely because I was not sure what jiggery-pokery is. However, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has written a stinging dissent to King that contains the memorable accusation that the majority was engaging in “interpretive jiggery-pokery.”
Quite fittingly given his prior decision harkening back to the original intent of the Framers, the term originates in the eighteenth century and means a dishonest manipulation or twisting like what we would call a flim-flam today. It can be traced to the Scottish word jouk, meaning to skillfully twist one’s body to avoid a blow like a boxer or fencer. Joukery became a term for underhanded dealing or trickery which led to the association with the word Pawky (from the word pawk or trick) Thus, by the seventeenth century, the first combination of joukery-pawkery were heard and it came into vogue in the 18th Century . . . and now again in the 21st Century.
What we have seen over the last several decades is a steady transformation from the Lockean social contract theory accepted at our founding and for which our rule of law was established, through Rousseau’s theory and now we have arrived at Hobbes. This has all been accomplished through amendments, legislation, judicial activism and the rise of the administrative state. The reason I suspect there has been and will continue to be “gnashing of teeth” is our consented rule of law no longer provides the security of natural rights for which it is chartered to do. We no longer have that fixed foundation on which any civil society rests. When the rule of law and more importantly the security of natural rights becomes dependent on winning elections then we are no longer a constitutional republic.
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
1, June 26, 2015 at 2:59 pm
@old nurse – “Gee, I don’t know. How did two parents without autism end up with an autistic child??? How did two parents who never used drugs, end up with a drug addict kid???”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000861969/polls_thumbs20up20happy20face_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg
You missed the point, SF. You don’t condition children to be autistic or addicted.
@old nurse
Gee, I don’t know. How did two parents without autism end up with an autistic child??? How did two parents who never used drugs, end up with a drug addict kid???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
To the person who thinks gays are “conditioned” to be gay. I assume you are straight. Were you “conditioned” to be straight?
Almost all gay people were raised by straight parents. How did they condition their kid to be gay?
It was the original intent of the original framers of the original Constitution and then the first ten Amendments to have slavery in some states. Scalia is an originalist and he is in the closet on that issue. Anything he says on the issue is pokery. We believe that Scalia may be poking Ginsberg.
@Dust Bunny Queen
~~ I completely agree with your comments. I have no issue with same sex marriage but I do not believe people are born that way. I believe they are conditioned into believing they are, which makes my concern of what is going to happen when people are watching TV with their children or in public and a show comes on that has scenes of same sex couples engaging in sex or same sex couples engaging in PDA. Then what? Is this conditioning?
~~Will the 5th grade sex ed class, be modified to include same sex, sex education?
~~Will they try to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples? The radical part of the LBGT community will most likely force that issue. Even though they believe in the separation of church and state, they will use the state to force the church to bow down to their will. . . . that’s next.
~~This new law has created a whole lotta more what if’s.
@Jacques
June 26, 2015 at 1:17 pm
“Hey Annie – is it part of your decent civil society that I as a [devout practicing muslim] cake baker can, due to my conscience/religious belief, refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual marriage ceremony?”
~~How will a devout practicing Muslims be able to tolerate this new gay marriage law? Do you realize to be politically correct, you will be forced to separate church (Islam) and State (Sharia Law)? Is that possible in a religion as old as Islam?
“Or are devout practicing Muslim not welcome in your tolerant civil society?”
~~That depends. . . if you are a devout practicing Muslim who believes in Jihad, then no one in a “Civil Society” should tolerate it. If you are a devout practicing Muslim who is just a devout practicing Muslim, then you are welcomed in a Civil Society.
Activist judge = someone who doesn’t rule the way I want.
Religious beliefs should not trump civil liberties, Jaques, no matter what religion. Maybe I’m member of the Church of Blondes and we believe red haired people are devils, so should my belief allow me to discriminate against redheads? Simplistic question, simplistic answer.
No, blondes should not be allowed to discriminate against red-heads, however, red-heads should discriminate against blondes.
Truly, I could give a rat’s patootey if two people of the same sex want to get married, hitched…..whatever. Get married. Be happy.
I don’t care what people do in their private lives as long as it is consenting, not harmful to animals or children and please…..don’t do it in public……get a room! That goes for everyone of every sexual orientation. Have some decorum ;-D
Get a marriage license. Get married at the Court Clerk’s office. Get married in a ceremony by people who are happy to do this for you surrounded by family and friends who are happy for you. There are many ways to formalize a marriage contract/license. Even some religious institutions will perform a religious ceremony for you AFTER you have gotten the license and gotten legally hitched. Go for it!
However, I do object to the trend where other people must be FORCED to approve or participate in the ceremonial aspects of SSM when it is objectionable to their religious tenents (beliefs). There ARE religious persons and institutions that do not believe in or want to participate in your SSM. The objection I have is in forcing people to abandon their beliefs and be subservient to the beliefs of others. The protection of the First Amendment should be trump.
You have a right to get married. You do NOT have the right to force your way into a church that doesn’t want to do what they believe is a sin. You do NOT have the right to force people to participate in your religious or secular ceremony. Revel in your rights and respect the rights of others.
Hey Annie,
how bout answering my question concering your civil society?
Paul, David M is already talking about revolution. Take off your blinders.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395591/-TX-Pastor-Threatens-To-Set-Self-Aflame-If-SCOTUS-Rules-In-Favor-Of-Marriage-Equality-We-Will-Burn
Awaiting the conflagration.
Ah I see the poo poo poems are being delivered via RIL comments section today, just as I said yesterday. I agree, it’s sweet music to the ears to hear the gnashing of teeth and ripping of hair.
I have not seen any anguish or ripping of garment or gnashing of teeth. You must be reading another blog. There is some comment defending the dissenters. That is to be expected.
My biggest pins and needles case is U.S. Congress v Burwell. That involves separation of powers that could have far reaching changes in the make up of our Constitution. Taking the power of the purse away from congress is an extreme abomination of the highest court of the land.
I am bathing in sweet, sweet wingnut tears from the usual assortment of dead enders, gay haters and marsupial genocidal lunatic(s) here today.
Send me your impotent and angry tears. I want all of them. I savor them.
AnneMarie Dickey – I thought there were two ways this could go in reality. 1) they would stay neutral and leave it to the states or 2) they would follow the lead of the circuit courts. They decided, on a close vote, to follow the circuit courts.
Next will be polygamy and polyandry. The reasoning is exactly the same.
@Mike Appleton
Well, I hope you are right about Little Melvin, but in today’s hysterical climate, who can guess??? Meanwhile, and I hope nobody thinks I am being mercenary, but I was just wondering how to make money off this gay marriage stuff, and here is what I have come up with. I think it could be franchised, and I am open to taking in partners with seed money!
https://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/gay-wedding-chapel-31.jpg?w=490
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hey Annie
is it part of your decent civil society that I as a [devout practicing muslim] cake baker can, due to my conscience/religious belief, refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual marriage ceremony? Or are devout practicing muslims not welcome in your tolerant civil society?
There might be a way. Article 5 of the Constitution: Meaning: Another way to amend the Constitution is when two thirds of the states’ legislatures ask Congress to set up a convention for suggesting amendments. Any amendment made by the convention must then be approved by three fourths of all of the states.
I think it’s possible that this will end up happening. SCOTUS has been hijacked by political correctness.